Hi Anand,
> From: Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.sim...@collabora.co.uk>
>
> When disabling the samsung PWM the output state remains at the level
> it was in the end of a pwm cycle. In other words, calling pwm_disable
> when at 100% duty will keep the output active, while at all other
> setting the output will go/stay inactive. On top of that the samsung
> PWM settings are double-buffered, which means the new settings only
> get applied at the start of a new PWM cycle.
>
> This results in a race if the PWM is at 100% duty and a driver calls:
> pwm_config (pwm, 0, period);
> pwm_disable (pwm);
>
> In this case the PWMs output will unexpectedly stay active, unless a
> new PWM cycle happened to start between the register writes in
> _config and _disable. As far as i can tell this is a regression
> introduced by 3bdf878, before that a call to pwm_config would call
> pwm_samsung_enable which, while heavy-handed, made sure the expected
> settings were live.
>
> To resolve this, while not re-introducing the issues 3bdf878
> (flickering as the PWM got reset while in a PWM cycle). Only force an
> update of the settings when at 100% duty, which shouldn't have a
> noticeable effect on the output but is enough to ensure the behaviour
> is as expected on disable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.sim...@collabora.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.am...@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c
> index 3e9b583..649f6c4 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c
> @@ -269,12 +269,31 @@ static void pwm_samsung_disable(struct pwm_chip
> *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&samsung_pwm_lock, flags); }
>
> +static void pwm_samsung_manual_update(struct samsung_pwm_chip *chip,
> + struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +{
> + unsigned int tcon_chan = to_tcon_channel(pwm->hwpwm);
> + u32 tcon;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&samsung_pwm_lock, flags);
> +
> + tcon = readl(chip->base + REG_TCON);
> + tcon |= TCON_MANUALUPDATE(tcon_chan);
> + writel(tcon, chip->base + REG_TCON);
> +
> + tcon &= ~TCON_MANUALUPDATE(tcon_chan);
> + writel(tcon, chip->base + REG_TCON);
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&samsung_pwm_lock, flags);
> +}
> +
> static int pwm_samsung_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct
> pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> {
> struct samsung_pwm_chip *our_chip =
> to_samsung_pwm_chip(chip); struct samsung_pwm_channel *chan =
> pwm_get_chip_data(pwm);
> - u32 tin_ns = chan->tin_ns, tcnt, tcmp;
> + u32 tin_ns = chan->tin_ns, tcnt, tcmp, oldtcmp;
>
> /*
> * We currently avoid using 64bit arithmetic by using the
> @@ -288,6 +307,7 @@ static int pwm_samsung_config(struct pwm_chip
> *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, return 0;
>
> tcnt = readl(our_chip->base + REG_TCNTB(pwm->hwpwm));
> + oldtcmp = readl(our_chip->base + REG_TCMPB(pwm->hwpwm));
>
> /* We need tick count for calculation, not last tick. */
> ++tcnt;
> @@ -335,6 +355,15 @@ static int pwm_samsung_config(struct pwm_chip
> *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, writel(tcnt, our_chip->base +
> REG_TCNTB(pwm->hwpwm)); writel(tcmp, our_chip->base +
> REG_TCMPB(pwm->hwpwm));
> + /* In case the PWM is currently at 100% duty, force a manual
> update
Cosmetic comment:
Wasn't checkpatch complaining about this comment style?
/* .....
* .....
instead of:
/*
* .....
* .....
> + * to prevent the signal staying high in the pwm is disabled
> shortly
> + * afer this update (before it autoreloaded the new values) .
> + */
> + if (oldtcmp == (u32) -1) {
> + dev_dbg(our_chip->chip.dev, "Forcing manual update");
> + pwm_samsung_manual_update(our_chip, pwm);
> + }
> +
> chan->period_ns = period_ns;
> chan->tin_ns = tin_ns;
> chan->duty_ns = duty_ns;
Despite the above,
Acked-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@samsung.com>
--
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
